A lawyer’s duty, the Tennessee State Courts Rules of Professional Conduct say, is to represent his or her clients “zealously ... within the bounds of the law.” A lawyer’s duty to the administration of justice should be to support a fair and efficient way to resolve substantive disputes. The amendments to the Tennessee Human Rights Act and the state’s Workers’ Compensation law that went into effect this month were intended to simplify an already overly complex area of the law, and they have done so without doing violence to the rights of workers.

As a supporter of the amendments who had input into their provisions, I would like to clarify some of the points made in the July 6 Viewpoint guest column by attorney Bryce W. Ashby and Rhodes College professor Michael J. LaRosa (“New laws will hurt workers, citizens”). Although they wrote that a “dramatic shift in the rights of workers in the state” has occurred under the current General Assembly and Gov. Bill Haslam, the amended laws, in fact, do not deprive Tennessee workers of any rights.

The changes were supported by expert testimony, thoroughly debated and modified in both houses of the legislature, and reported on in the media well prior to their passage. They were passed with few opposition votes in the legislature. The changes simplify and coordinate the provisions of federal and state law and streamline procedures. The results are greater efficiency and less cost to the parties involved — both employees and employers.

For example, prior to these amendments, a plaintiff alleging a human rights violation by his or her employer could file two separate lawsuits in both federal and state courts concerning the same set of facts. This resulted in unnecessary time being expended by the courts and the attorneys for the plaintiff and employer to prosecute or defend the complaints in both courts. Under the amended law a plaintiff must elect which system he or she will use to proceed on the claims. This not only benefits the defense, but also frees the employee’s attorney from the obligation to use such a ploy to meet the standard of “zealous” representation.

The new law also provides for treatment as to damages and other remedies that is consistent with federal law. Tennessee law now recognizes that smaller employers are less sophisticated and more vulnerable to workers’ lawsuits alleging human rights violations, and has adopted the graduated caps on punitive and compensatory damages that are available under the federal law. These “soft damage” aspects of a case are unrelated to an employee’s actual economic loss. State law prior to the amendments did not allow punitive damages at all.

Notably, federal law and the amended state law do not cap damages related to either back pay or potential future pay. Further, the law remains unchanged as to the potential for an employee who wins his or her lawsuit to be awarded attorneys’ fees by the court.

As to the aspect of the law that relates to “whistle-blowers,” two separate claims were previously available under Tennessee law to employees alleging retaliation by their employer after they reported unlawful actions in the workplace. The amendments eliminated this duplication. However, the range of options available to an employee observing an infraction of the law at work is staggering. For example, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor reviews claims of wage violations and a complaint can be completely anonymous. Further, a federal complaint typically is investigated by trained experts. The complaining employee and similarly situated employees can gain a recovery without filing a lawsuit or hiring a lawyer.

A truck driver with safety concerns can address the issue directly, anonymously and effectively by complaining to state agencies or the U.S. Department of Transportation. The federal agency takes such matters seriously and the resulting action is swifter and potentially more serious than the outcome of a lawsuit by an employee and his or her counsel, as the Transportation Department can completely shut the operation down, something a court could not do.

There are many other examples of existing whistle-blower protections, including those in federal civil rights laws.

As to the recent changes in Tennessee’s workers’ compensation law, although the proper amount of compensation in such a case is certainly open to debate, the main thrust of the amendments was to simplify and speed up the system by which compensation is awarded to an injured worker.

Adopting an administrative system for hearing a worker’s appeal of a denied claim brings Tennessee in line with systems used in 48 other states and the federal government. This system can now culminate in a decision by an expert in workers’ compensation, an administrative judge. The former system provided for adjudication of appeals by a circuit court judge who might not have in-depth experience in workers’ compensation law, and who would decide such matters in between divorce cases and commercial actions.

In sum, the recent amendments were intended to make Tennessee’s law consistent with other existing laws and expedite the decision-making process. This benefits all parties and the citizens of the state by minimizing confusion over how the law applies and leads to quicker, more cost-effective results.

James R. Mulroy is an attorney and managing shareholder of the Memphis office of Jackson Lewis PC.